Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (111737)	4/30/2005 8:26:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 791536

I disagree that the middle is currently covered. While "conservative democrats", and "liberal republicans" are decreasing in number and power you can still find many republicans who are to the left of center on particular issues and democrats who are to the right on particular issues. Even if there is some center that truly is uncovered it would be pretty small. Being in the middle wouldn't make for a basis of a party. Now you might get some other basis, some specific idea that becomes popular, and a party or independent candidate that sells that idea might do better if it is somewhere around the middle (to the extent you can tell what the middle really is) on most other issues. But right now I can't think of what that issue might be. What issues aren't being covered very well by one party or the other? Fiscal conservatism? - Balancing the budget isn't something that really has a big constituency. It does in theory but in practice too many people want their favorite programs to continue to expand. And if it does gain traction than one or both of the major parties will move to take over the issue. The Republicans used to push this issue a bit, not a few Democrats are (but to them it mostly just means higher taxes). Libertarianism either in general or some specific aspect of it (less government spending, legalized drugs, whatever) - Again an idea which only excites a small minority. There already is a libertarian party but its not taken seriously even by many libertarians. As for a party that's all about just being in the middle - What really is the middle is highly subjective. If Clinton had a top tax rate of somewhere around 40% and Bush wants 33%, are you going to get a lot of excitement that insists on 34 or 35%? Can you get the basis of a party from trying to split the difference on abortion? Is there any way to split the difference on Iraq? I think the answer to all of these questions is no. The two parties might have moved a bit apart, maybe a middle can be seen but its too small. You don't have libertarians and socialists as the two main parties. You don't have a party advocating a theocracy and another advocating monarchy. There isn't a big enough uncovered middle for a party at this time. Tim